The early building blocks of fascism are being put in place in our country.

How long before the Labour Party decides that some people should be made to wear yellow stars?

Many will find it difficult to believe that the early building blocks of fascism are being put in place in our country, especially under a Labour banner. That is exactly what is happening under Helen Clark's government, and intentionally so.

This week, Steve Maharey, a man Labourites seriously promote as a potential prime minister, told parliament: "The intention of (the Electoral Finance Bill) is to capture people like the Exclusive Brethren, not the Catholic Church." A potential Labour prime minister actually said that in our parliament, but it gets worse.

No less than the deputy prime minister, Michael Cullen, asked the justice minister to amend the bill so that the Catholic Church's planned anti-poverty campaign would be allowed to proceed, on the grounds that it would support Labour's Working for Families policy, in contrast to something the Brethren might say.

That, too, was actually said in our parliament. Our deputy prime minister and a potential Labour prime minister are openly arguing that some religious groups should be allowed to express their views, while others should not.

It is difficult to believe this is happening in our country, but people need to wake up to the fact that it is. If it goes on, we risk reaching the moment of political crisis, when the people must act.

Lest it be thought I'm a Brethren sympathiser, the truth is that my poor daughters are far more likely to endure parental readings from Richard Dawkins than anything from the Bible or Koran. With the decline of organised religion in New Zealand, I may even be in the majority, but that is exactly why the Brethren's right to free speech must be defended, and why Maharey and Cullen's statements are so evil. Both would once have recognised it.

As an historian, Cullen must have read the words of Robert H Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials: "The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."

Maharey has surely read Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

Both must have read George Orwell: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

Labour's desire to control what we can say and write, and read and hear, extends beyond the bill.

On Thursday, it launched its emissions trading scheme, a system broadly supported by government and opposition; industry and environmentalists. It's a non-partisan issue.

Nevertheless, Labour stopped the environment ministry booklets and brochures from being written by Madeleine Setchell, by firing her because of her links to another party. Instead, the ministry contracted Clark's former press secretary to do the job. How much was he paid?

The ministry is now pressing ahead with its register of the political activity of all its employees' family and friends. Under the Electoral Finance Bill, everyone involved in anything but the most minor political activity in election year will also be required to register with the state.

This week, we also learned that health ministry call centre workers were being instructed to outline the "achievements" of the "Labour-led government" to people wanting to find out about a flu shot. The health minister defended this blatant abuse of the public service.

To their credit, once caught, ministry bosses rushed to remove the politics.

Politically motivated sackings. Ministers deciding which religious groups should be allowed to speak. Bureaucrats being instructed to peddle propaganda for the ruling party. Registers of political activity. This is not a scene from Sleeping Dogs.

It's our reality, today, under Clark.

Election reform legislation would not stop the Exclusive Brethren's "secret seven" spending hundreds of thousands of dollars campaigning against the Government, a committee of MPs has been told.

Parliament's justice and electoral select committee is considering the Government's Electoral Finance Bill which is designed to stop covert campaigns like that waged at the last election by seven wealthy Exclusive Brethren businessmen.

However its wide definitions of third parties and advertising have been criticised by social agencies, churches, unions and business groups, which say the bill would limit their existing advocacy activities.

Prominent blogger and former National Party staffer David Farrar today told MPs the bill would fail to stop groups like the Exclusive Brethren's so-called "secret seven" spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a political campaign.

They would be able to do this by each registering as a third party and then spending $60,000 each – amounting to $420,000.

Individuals, if they chose, could also sign up 500 people, register as a political party, then spend up to $1 million even if they did not stand any candidates.

Farrar, who runs the right-leaning Kiwiblog weblog, said there was little evidence that elections could be successfully "bought" and third parties that wanted to campaign would always find loopholes.

He believed the bill should be withdrawn and any changes to the electoral finance laws should begin with wide public consultation to build a consensus before a bill was drafted.

If the committee decided the bill should proceed, they should recommend enforcement powers be taken away from the police and given to the Electoral Commission, he said.

The police failure to prosecute both Labour and National for Electoral Act breaches in 2005 had been "incompetent", he said.

Author Nicky Hager, whose book The Hollow Men, details many of the links between the Brethren campaign and National's leadership at the time, said law changes to crack down on third party campaigns were necessary.

"This is the growth area in dodgy election campaigning and everything that can be done to control it would be an investment in not having dodgy electioneering in the future."

He said he supported the extension of the campaign period and the $60,000 cap on spending, but the bill needed amendments.

The most urgent change was lowering the cap on anonymous donations to political parties and banning the use of secret trusts used to anonymise donations.

"The main thing this bill will allow is continuing secret donations . . . and that is actually worse than the third party campaign, that's the dodgiest thing in the election finance regime in New Zealand and that will all continue."

He said the easiest way the committee could do this would be to recommend the introduction of a small amount of state funding in order to get cross-party support for the change.

There also needed to be a tightening of parties' declarations on how money is spent, he said.

Before the bill was introduced the Government failed to get sufficient political support to introduce greater state funding.

As a result it decided to leave the law around anonymous donations unchanged – parking the issue with a yet to be appointed panel, which will report on it some time after next year's election.

Extract:

Independent MP Gordon Copeland says he was thrown a "curve ball" over the way the leadership of the new Christian party was announced and he has given no guarantees he will stick with it.

He said yesterday's announcement of the leadership, which he wasn't told about, made the party look shambolic and "Mickey Mouse".

Mr Tamaki said people from within the Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches were involved in setting up the party.

The party's national advisory council was a group of "seasoned" church leaders from different denominations who were involved as individuals rather than speaking for their respective denominations.

But it had "not crossed my mind" to ask the Exclusive Brethren, he said.

Not exactly a marriage made in heaven, then. And maybe a hell of a quick divorce.

Gordon Copeland's less-than- rapturous reaction to his blind date with Destiny was about as bad an advertisement for new-found unity as you can get.

What he said was that he could "probably live with" Destiny NZ leader Richard Lewis as co-leader of the party. That a lot of mentoring would be needed. That he, Gordon, had five years' experience in Parliament. And yes of course he, Gordon, would be the other co-leader who was referred to, but not named, by Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki.

The impression left was not just of disunity and poor coordination – what National leader John Key chose to describe as not exactly "seamless" – but of an MP who did not allow the occasion to overwhelm his self-importance.

This from the man who once gave credence to the possibility of perpetual motion, who failed to turn up for the vote on the child discipline bill over which he quit United Future, and who recently issued a press statement attacking the answer to a question he had not yet asked.

But wait, there's more.

By yesterday Mr Copeland had decided that no one had been so badly blindsided as him since TV3's John Campbell kicked open Corngate on Helen Clark. And he gave every impression that the "Mickey Mouse and shambolic" start did not bode well for the future, and that they might just call the whole thing off.

(He might have added that his own ducking and diving with the media, including some sophistry about what he knew, had already ensured a sceptical reaction before the party was even launched. Had that been a minister there would have been calls for him to quit in short order.)

Claims about the so-called National Advisory Council to the party, with its individuals representing the broad Christian spectrum, have similarly deflated.

These 12 apostles of the new party, who apparently dare not speak their names, have been disowned by several churches including the Salvation Army.

The press release from the Sallies' territorial commander, Commissioner Garth McKenzie, made it clear he had been badgered by Mr Copeland but had rejected the advance on the basis that the church needed to stay apolitical. So how did this parade of ego turn into such a case study in political ineptitude?

It seems at least possible that, far from requiring any "mentoring", the leaders of Destiny NZ were showing real political smarts, by ensuring that they did not deregister their party before establishing part- ownership of the new one.

Were they taking out insurance in case Mr Copeland – with his obvious reluctance to share power – chose to play hard ball?

Or is he a master tactician who has manoeuvred Destiny into dissolving and will now cut them loose?

Nah. Mr Copeland is on the surface gentlemanly and kind; for all the world the small town vicar or accountant.

But he is just not cut out for the bear pit. The sooner he realises that, the better for him and for the future of Christian politics.

Against a background of such pole-axing ineptitude it is difficult to treat the whole question of a "Christian" and "family friendly" party seriously.

But it does have serious ramifications. The most obvious would be its dilution of the centre-right vote if – as happened in 1996 – it drew significant support but failed to win a seat or reach the 5 per cent threshold. To top 5 per cent such a party would require appeal across the political and religious spectrum, embracing the liberal as well as conservative instincts in the Christian congregation.

A PARTY based around Destiny and the conservatives represented by Mr Copeland and his former colleagues Larry Baldock, Paul Adams and Bernie Ogilvie is more likely to draw mainly from the centre-right well.

Far from assisting National into power, it is likely to do just the opposite.

At the moment National's best chance of winning is not just to open a big lead over Labour but also in getting within cooee of 50 per cent so its minor party allies, UnitedFuture and ACT, can help it across the line.

Peeling off some of that support – and maybe throwing it into the electoral rubbish bin – can only compromise Mr Key's chances of winning power.

The putative party's counter-argument is that it can also win potential Labour voters in Mangere and other South Auckland seats that were crucial to Helen Clark's victory in 2005. But that would all be for nothing if it wrecked National's chances of forming a government with the support or acquiescence of the Greens – who it is hard to believe would ever countenance a National- Tamaki government.

An even bigger concern for National would be the risk that such a potential alliance will turn off centrist and liberal voters in its increasingly broad church.

As United Future leader Peter Dunne noted, the last thing National wants is to swap the Exclusive Brethren of 2005 for Destiny in 2008.

Extract:

The new party, which is yet to get a name, is backed by a "national advisory council", said by Destiny and Mr Copeland to comprise "seasoned" church leaders but whose members want to remain secret for now.

A membership list has apparently been circulated to churches and is said by Destiny and Future NZ to have members from all the major churches.

But Mr Copeland yesterday insisted that its members could not afford to be named.

"It compromises those people if their names become public."

But Bishop Tamaki said if Christian politicians wanted a genuine voice in Pariament, they would be "far more effective together than we are apart".

He and Mr Copeland were agreed that the new party would seek a coalition with National if it won parliamentary representation.

But National leader John Key, whose predecessor Don Brash was dogged by dealings with the Exclusive Brethren, yesterday downplayed that likelihood.

Extract:

The Prime Minister answered four questions uttering a grim "No" when asked whether he was still considering resigning his beleaguered leadership of the party and the country. One of the media pack suggested there had been rumours he was going to announce his resignation tomorrow. "That's news to me," he retorted before his media minder closed it down.

On Saturday Mr Howard was meeting and greeting citizens at Carlingford shopping centre. There he came face to face with members of the controversial Exclusive Brethren sect, who followed him around the centre.

Pity the religion, some of whose members have been accused of funding the Government's re-election campaign, doesn't allow its faithful to vote.

The election is increasingly likely to be held in late October or early November as Liberal MPs begin airbrushing John Howard out of their local campaigns after the damaging leadership chaos of the past week.

The sources ruled out any visit by Mr Howard to the Governor-General today to start the campaign despite some speculation in Canberra. They said Parliament would sit this week and after that senior Government figures would sit down with pollster Mark Textor, campaign director Brian Loughnane and Mr Howard to set the poll date.

The sources denied claims circulating within the Government that Mr Loughnane and Cabinet ministers, including Alexander Downer, were in favour of pushing the election out, while Mr Howard was keen to go earlier.

It's understood Mr Downer, the Foreign Affairs Minister, has privately canvassed the option of going to the polls as late as December on the basis that the longer Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd is exposed the more likely he will be to make a major mistake.

For his part, Mr Howard will be anxious to avoid another series of bad opinion polls of the sort which seriously destabilised his leadership this week. That saw most of Cabinet decide he should stand aside in favour of Peter Costello, then back away from insisting the Prime Minister quit the top job.

The case for a later election has strengthened following leaked results from Labor focus groups immediately after Mr Howard's decision to "share" the leadership with Peter Costello, while flagging he will retire some time next term if he wins.

According to senior Labor figures, groups of voters surveyed in Adelaide and Sydney gave the thumbs down to Mr Howard's retirement and succession plans. Their views helped script Labor's rapid-response television advertisements this week, highlighting the Government's confusion about who was leading it and where it was headed.

Liberal MPs and candidates, aghast at the damage done to the Government's re-election chances by the Prime Minister's blundering this week, have begun to devise campaigns minimising his profile – in stark contrast to previous polls where Mr Howard's profile was regarded as a positive. "Candidates are starting to put together campaigns which stress their local credentials rather than any presidential-style campaign," a frontbencher said.

"We're not going to want Howard anywhere near our seats during the campaign. Don't expect to see many pictures of him around voting booths on polling day, either."

Meanwhile, on the day Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd launched his campaign slogan, Mr Howard toured a Sydney shopping centre and posed for photographs, shook hands, hugged and even kissed constituents for more than an hour-and-a-half.

"If I am returned and the Government is returned in the coming election, I will serve as the member for Bennelong for the full term and I won't be inflicting a by-election on the people of my electorate," Mr Howard said.

Members of the religious sect The Exclusive Brethren showed their support, shaking hands and following his entourage. "We are right behind him," one female member said.

Extract:

Meanwhile, Mr Howard, touring Carlingford Court Shopping Centre, posed for photographs, shook hands, hugged and even kissed constituents for more than 1 hour.

"If I am returned and the Government is returned in the coming election, I will serve full term as a member for Bennelong for the full term and I won't be inflicting a by-election on the people of my electorate," Mr Howard said.

Members of the controversial religious sect, The Exclusive Brethren lent their support, shaking hands with the Prime Minister and following his entourage.

Kevin Rudd, who has labelled the Exclusive Brethren as "an extremist cult and sect", once congratulated Brethren members in his Brisbane electorate for their good work.

Mr Rudd, the Member for Griffith, expressed his pleasure at the Brethren's "dedication to providing the highest quality of education for your students".

A few months later, Mr Rudd was accusing the Brethren of being a dangerous cult, as having a lack of tolerance and antiquated policies, particularly with regard to the treatment of children.

Mr Rudd said the Brethren broke up families and denied education opportunities to children.

"I also believe that there are real problems with the provision of modern education to kids under their system where they, for example, are not given the full range of access to information technology," he said.

But in a letter dated May 31, 2007, Mr Rudd wrote a gushing letter to Greg Thomas, principal of the Brethren-run Agnew School in Norman Park.

"I am pleased to inform you that the application tendered by Agnew School for the provision of wordex machines and computers has been successful," he said.

"I am pleased that your dedication to providing the highest quality of education for your students has been rewarded through this funding initiative."

Mr Rudd seemed to have forgotten comments he made in September last year when he called for a review of federal funding to Brethren schools.

"The Exclusive Brethren, based on my advice, actively discourages children from using information technology, from learning how to use computers properly because they will provide avenues of contact with the outside world," he said.

Brethren members are prohibited from voting, attending university, having TVs, radios, personal computers or mobiles phones.

Brethren leader Bruce Hales said: "Contrary to what Mr Rudd claims, our schools have IT facilities and audio-visual equipment, which the students are encouraged to use, and the level of curriculum offered provides access to tertiary studies."